Standing Committee A

[Miss Ann Widdecombe in the Chair]

Police Reform Bill [Lords]

John Denham: On a point of order, Miss Widdecombe. The Committee may recall that, at our previous sitting, we discussed legislation allowing for blood samples to be taken from unconscious victims, and the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) referred to representations that had been made by the British Medical Association. I told him that we would reconsider the matter, although the intention of the clause was in line with the issues that he raised. We have now had a chance to consider those representations and we shall table an amendment on Report to put such matters beyond doubt.

James Paice: Further to that point of order, Miss Widdecombe. I thank the Minister for taking seriously the points that we raised and I look forward to the tabling of the amendment.Clause 63 Ministry of Defence police serving with other forces

Clause 63 - Ministry of Defence police serving with other forces

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: I am sure that the Minister is aware that there are sometimes sensitivities between the Royal Military Police and the Ministry of Defence police. Has the right hon. Gentleman looked into the matter? Does he consider that the proposals may improve the position? I represent a military constituency. Camberley is the main town, and I have a lot of contact with senior Army officers, including some who are senior—either currently serving or retired—Royal Military Police officers. Such tensions are well known to anyone who has had anything to do with the Army and we hope that they will reduce over time.

John Denham: I shall decline the invitation to say too much about that issue. The clause does not deal with interaction or interface between the two forces. It concerns the MOD police and is set against a wider background. It recognises that greater flexibility in the operation of the MOD police with other forces is desirable. The clause provides proper legal underpinning to enable that to take place. It does not deal with the relationship between MOD police and the Royal Military Police. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise certain issues on that subject, I undertake to pass them to my ministerial colleagues in the Ministry of Defence.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 64 to 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 67 - Nationality requirements applicable to police officers etc.

John Denham: I beg to move amendment No. 240, in page 62, line 47, at end insert—
'and, in a case where the power to make provision with respect to qualification for appointment as a constable or as a special constable, or for membership of a force, Service or Squad, is exercisable by any such regulations as are mentioned in that subsection, the regulations made must impose requirements with respect to all the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).
 The clause was debated extensively in another place, and the amendment honours a commitment that was made by Lord Rooker. Police forces want to employ the best and most suitable people as police officers. They want to select people on merit and do not want to exclude people because of factors that have no bearing on their ability to do the job. Forces have found that the existing nationality rules hinder the recruitment of good people who may have been living in the United Kingdom for many years, but who do not qualify on account of their nationality. 
 The current rules allow Irish citizens to become police officers, but exclude people from other member states of the European Union. They also allow people from the Commonwealth who are resident here to be police officers, but exclude other foreign nationals resident here. We believe that the removal of the nationality bar will widen the pool of potential recruits, and so help the police service to improve its diversity and better reflect our society. It will make the police service more inclusive than exclusive, and it will enable us to concentrate on selecting on merit. 
 The police services of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland support the removal of the nationality restriction, as do the National Crime Squad, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the British Transport police, the Royal Parks constabulary, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority constabulary, the Special constabulary and the Association of Police Authorities. 
 In the other place, several Lords expressed concern about the fact that Britain could be policed by people who did not speak English, could not be understood by the public, or knew nothing about this country. I think that those fears were misplaced. None the less, the amendment responds to those who expressed such fears. Clearly, the ability to communicate effectively with the public and write plain English is essential for police work. It is also essential that police officers have knowledge of Britain and the society that they police. 
 The amendment requires the Government to make regulations that will ensure that police officers cannot be appointed unless they are competent in written and oral English. Candidates' skill in oral and written English will be tested, and if they do not reach a satisfactory standard they will be rejected, even if they have all the other skills and competencies needed. 
 Foreign and European Union nationals—indeed all candidates—will need to satisfy our rigorous vetting requirements. It might, for example, be unlikely that 
 someone who has lived here for a short time could be vetted; that person would therefore not qualify for appointment. There will also be a provision to reserve posts that are particularly sensitive to national security. That combination of safeguards will be put in place and those requirements will need to be met before a candidate of whatever nationality qualifies for appointment. 
 We do not intend to change the immigration rules to allow us to recruit people who have no right to work and live in the UK from abroad. To be eligible to serve in the police force, foreign nationals will need to be resident in the UK and have no restrictions attached to their stay. We will not actively recruit from abroad. The intention is to allow those who already live in the UK or have the right to work here, such as EU nationals, to join the police service if they have the right qualities and skills. 
 The lifting of the nationality bar will not lead to a reduction in the quality of recruits. Robust recruitment standards will maintain the quality of recruits, and all applicants, whether British or not, will have to meet certain criteria before they qualify for appointment, including those specified in the regulations that I discussed earlier. Applicants will need to show that they have the key competencies required for policing. If they do, there is no good reason why they should be excluded from the police service.

James Paice: As the Minister rightly said, deeply held concerns were expressed in the other place about opening up the nationality bar. Lord Rooker—recently departed to other pastures—and the Minister sought to allay those concerns. I appreciate the amendment, which also endeavours to do that. I fully recognise the strength of the argument that there are people who have made this country their home and have been here a long while who are debarred on nationality grounds, and that seems unfair. I am not sure how many such recruits there will be; the implication is that there will not be a huge number. We will probably only find out what effect the amendment has on recruitment in due course. I accept the principle of the Minister's argument, although a part of me retains concerns.
 First, I am puzzled as to why subsection (4)(c) does not appear in the amendment, which says that 
''regulations made must impose requirements with respect to all the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).''
 Why not (c) as well? That is a puzzle, and I hope that the Minister will explain. He said in his opening remarks that in some cases, involving particular sensitivities, nationality is significant. I should have thought that that still has to be covered in regulations. It may be difficult to do that, but a framework must be found, or the Commission for Racial Equality, if no one else, will scrupulously examine every appointment for which a bar on nationality grounds seems to have been introduced. 
 Secondly, the Minister touched on the issue of people who live here, and residency. In the other place, 
 his former colleague said that that would apply only to people who had made their home in this country or possibly, as the Minister says, other EU nationals. Will he give us some guidance about what is expected to be laid down in guidance or regulations about residency qualifications? That is important. It will be a widespread view among the public that a police officer, who has all the powers that we spent so much time discussing, should have demonstrated total commitment to this country. There may be understandable reasons why they have chosen not to become a British citizen, but that commitment to this country needs to have been shown for a considerable period. Competence in English, important though that is, or knowledge of British life, which can be gained in other ways, are not necessarily adequate. 
 What are the Minister's thoughts about residency qualifications? Certainly Lord Rooker implied that there would be residency qualifications. I am slightly worried that they have not appeared. I welcome the amendment as a step forward, but I remain puzzled about the exclusion of paragraph (c), and I should be grateful if the Minister would explain.

John Denham: On the first point, about the exclusion of subsection (4)(c) from the requirement to make regulations, the feeling is that that approach is too prescriptive, because it seems to require before the event a list of each rank and position in the police service in order to determine whether it would be covered if we wanted to exclude it. It would be more sensible to retain the power to exclude specific posts as, in the light of experience and focus on particular posts, that becomes necessary.
 It would be rather a large-scale exercise to produce for each police service, before anyone had been recruited, a list of every post, rank or position that could or could not be occupied by someone of different nationality. However, there is no difference between us about the intention of the policy, which is that there must be the ability to reserve posts of particular sensitivity.

James Paice: I take the Minister's point. We have always found that a listing system in legislation inevitably creates problems, because of exclusion. However, I hope that the Minister will accept that in taking that approach he is effectively opening himself up to legal challenge every time such decisions are made and someone who is not a British citizen might be eligible for that post. The issue of racial discrimination legislation will come into play—unless he tells me that the police force is exempt, but I do not believe that it is. Otherwise, I can imagine a legion of such cases being brought every time someone believes that they might have been discriminated against, whether that is true or not.

John Denham: In practice, it would be important for such issues to be dealt with ahead of receiving an individual application from a particular person to a named post. That would present difficulties if the proceedings got that far. I suspect that at some point especially sensitive posts will have to be identified, but I would resist the idea of needing to have a full list before anyone is recruited to any rank of the police service. Also, there is no risk of legal challenge if the
 rules clearly provide for the reservation of posts. We would be more vulnerable had there been no provision to make such regulations, and some way down the line someone was told, ''You are not going to become the director of terrorism in the Metropolitan police.'' I believe that we are legally covered.
 The second question concerned guidance. The amendment enables the Government to make regulations with regard to immigration status. It is our intention that the regulations that we introduce will include a requirement for applicants to have a settled immigration status in the United Kingdom—they must be eligible to live in this country without any restrictions on their stay. I have examined the drafting, and whether in 15 or 20 years' time somebody would apply the amendment in the same way is something that we will have to leave open. However, the Government intend to introduce regulations to require that foreign nationals must be resident in the UK with no restrictions attached to their stay. I believe that that is the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

James Paice: It went a bit further than that. I appreciate that applicants must be living here legally and able to stay unhindered, but my question related to the period of residency required prior to making an application—the showing of a commitment to this country. There are plenty of people in the world who can come to the UK and have the necessary immigration status within a matter of weeks or months of arriving. I am more concerned about how long they have been here and been part of British society and so learned how we live.

John Denham: To be honest, that is a matter that we will have to examine in more detail when we draft the regulations. At this stage, we have not set out that there should be a two-year, five-year or 10-year test. In general, the other tests of competence and knowledge that would be part of the recruitment service are probably more focused on identifying whether an individual has sufficient knowledge and understanding of this country to do the job. We can consider whether there should be a further residence test when we come to the detailed drafting of the regulations.

Kevan Jones: Is it not the case that non-UK citizens are practising and therefore administering the law? It is not necessary to be a UK citizen. My solicitor—an American citizen with permanent residency of 20 years—regularly practises in the courts. In the administration of justice, therefore, non-UK citizens are already part of the process.

John Denham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, although I would draw a distinction between someone practising professionally, albeit as part of the criminal justice system, and someone who would exercise the full powers of a sworn constable—powers of arrest and detention over citizens and other residents of the UK. I understand my hon. Friend's point, but the Government believe that becoming a police officer has a significance that sets them apart from other citizens.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister is being helpful in his response to the Opposition's points. I respectfully agree with his comments to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). However, when he and his advisers consider what the minimum period of residency should be, he should take into account that the Police Federation has urged us that a minimum of three years' residency in the UK should be a precondition of someone being considered. I agree, and think that, in the end, we may need an even longer requirement. Three-years' residency should be the irreducible minimum.

John Denham: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not want to make any commitment today. There is a logic to his comments, but imagine a situation in which somebody who lived in the UK some time ago—perhaps an American citizen and serving police officer with a distinguished record in America—came to the UK with a British wife and had right of settlement. We might find that we had produced an arbitrarily high barrier to someone who would be welcome in the police service. To be honest, the issue should not be resolved when considering the Bill in Committee, but I undertake on behalf of the Government to examine it seriously when we produce the regulations. Of course, we will consult on those before we lay them before Parliament.

Boris Johnson: I just wonder how far the provisions are compatible with European law. If I were a Greek dentist who wanted to practise in London as a citizen of the European Union under single market legislation and the great treaty of Maastricht, there would be nothing to stop me. Indeed, there is a long tradition of police officers, such as Inspector Clouseau and Poirot, coming to work in this country. I am rather surprised that a restriction appears to be imposed on European Community nationals serving as policemen in this country.

John Denham: As we shall discuss later, Hercule Poirot turns out to have been working without proper insurance cover during all the dramas that we enjoy on television. We shall try to put that right when we discuss later clauses.
 Of course, the European Union has not tried to extend provisions on free movement of labour to certain functions, and one of those is national policing. The Bill is entirely compatible with our international treaty obligations. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 67, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 68 - Attestation of constables

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Norman Baker: I rise tentatively to make a point on the form of declaration, which contains a reference to the monarch. In the previous clause, an attempt has been made to try to broaden the base of
 those who are eligible to serve in the police force, which I wholly support. The points made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and others about commitment to this country are absolutely right, and the Minister appears to share that view, as, I suspect, do we all.
 Those who have already taken nationality would not by covered by clause 67. That is designed to attract people who have been living in this country for some time, who have shown a deep commitment to the country and who have a satisfactory status, but who are not British citizens. Many such people would not be British citizens because they chose not to take the required oath when they took up residency. Many famous people fall into that category either because they are republicans or think that they might want to return whence they came when they reach 65 or 70. Consequently, they do not want to take the ultimate step of swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen. Do the terms of the form of declaration undermine the Government's attempts through clause 67 to attract people who are committed to this country but have not taken British nationality for one reason or another?

Paul Stinchcombe: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that deleting the words ''the Queen'' would harm in any way the policing function of a person who swore such an amended oath?

Norman Baker: I think that the form of declaration would be robust without those words and would perform the desired function. The person who swore the declaration would be committed to acting with fairness, integrity, diligence, impartiality and so on. That is a satisfactory oath that meets the high standards that we require of a police officer in this country. Without being disrespectful, the phrase is unnecessary and undermines the Government's attempts to attract people who, for their own reasons, do not wish to take British nationality. If people had taken British nationality, they would not be covered by clause 67.
 I did not table an amendment on the matter, but I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments.

George Osborne: Before we pass on from this clause, I want the Minister to explain why the oath is being changed. I disagree with the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on the matter.
 The oath has long referred to carrying out the office, 
''without favour or affection, malice or ill will''.
 That is a poetic form of words, but it has been replaced by a thoroughly modern, new Labour phrase. The new oath refers to carrying out the office 
''with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people''.
 Why is it necessary to change a form of words that has served us well, and which reflects the history of our language? That change is similar to opting for the modern, rather than the traditional, form of marriage vows.

Nick Hawkins: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). Unlike the Government and their Back Benchers, I am not obsessed with the cult of modernisation. I entered this House to uphold the traditional virtues of this country. I hope that the Minister has a good explanation for this change. I do not like getting rid of things hallowed by tradition and usage, unless there is a very good reason for doing so, and I would prefer to keep the traditional language. A parallel can be drawn between this change and the difference between the King James Bible, with which many of us grew up, and the appalling modern grammar of some new versions of the Bible. [Interruption.] I prefer the traditional version of the oath, as do most police officers. They will not be encouraged by this watering-down of the language.

Ann Widdecombe: Order. It is difficult to hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying because of the continual susurration from the Government Benches.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to you, Miss Widdecombe.
 I am delighted if I am provoking ire on the Government Back Benches, because one of the Opposition's most important tasks is to defend the traditions of this country against the raging cult of modernisation. I will not labour that point, because there are other matters to raise. However, I hear encouragement from my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), and I am sure that he also wishes to express his views on the subject.

Boris Johnson: I wish to add two points to the compendious case that has already been put to the Minister. I want him to justify the exclusion from the modern, politically correct, organic version of the oath of the words,
''Our Sovereign Lady the Queen'',
 and ''Her Majesty's subjects''. Is some subtle constitutional agenda in play here? Does the new oath envisage an attenuation of Her Majesty's sovereignty? Is the requirement of conformity with the treaty of Maastricht, or something similar, the reason why we are no longer allowed to refer to ''Her Majesty's subjects''?

John Denham: I fear that I must remind my newsagent to deliver The Spectator this week, so that I can read what the hon. Gentleman has written.
 I find myself in the middle ground between the rampant republicanism of the Liberal Democrats and the die-hard conservatism of the official Opposition. Some important points must be made on the matter. 
 One of the unique characteristics of the police service in this country is that police officers are servants of the Crown—they are not servants of this Government, the previous Government, or the future Government. That gives them a unique constitutional position, as we have discussed in debates on other topics. Unlike teachers and other public servants, police officers are not employees. As servants of the Crown, they have more in common with members of the armed forces than with any other group of public 
 servants. It is important to have an oath that retains that unique nature of the police service. 
 The reasons for the change are twofold. Anyone who is not prepared to swear an oath that they will serve the Queen, as all other police constables do, will exclude themselves from entry to the police service. There may be a category of people, as the hon. Gentleman said, who would like to join the police service but are not prepared to swear the oath, and they could not be accepted. Equally, however, citizens of other countries who owe their duty of citizenship to another Head of State or nation state would have difficulty in swearing an oath of allegiance to the sovereign of another country. The wording of the oath, on which Buckingham palace has been fully consulted, enables all police officers to swear to serve the Queen but avoids citizens of other countries having to swear a constitutional oath that they could not make.

Paul Stinchcombe: Is it not time that we owned up to the constitutional fiction that the police are servants of the monarch? They are servants of the people.

John Denham: That would be an interesting debate and I invite my Friend to seek an Adjournment debate on the matter at a time of his choosing.
 Something that strikes me quite forcibly and, I suspect, my hon. Friend, because of his knowledge of law, is that for the vast majority of police officers their status as servants of the Queen is enormously important. That applies to police officers with a huge range of private views on political issues and so on. It is part of the status that they value enormously. We do not want to change that, nor do we want a two-tier system of oaths whereby police officers who are British citizens swear one oath and others swear another. 
 The second point of the hon. Member for Henley concerned the change from Her Majesty's subjects to people and property. The reality is that we would expect an American tourist in London who was the victim of crime to receive the same quality of service, respect and treatment as a British citizen who was the victim of crime. The wording of the traditional oath—I understand what was said about the language—is technically restricted to British citizens and that is not the way in which we want our police service to operate. The broadening of its range of responsibilities is reflected in the oath.

Boris Johnson: Could the Minister clarify why the phrase
''Our Sovereign Lady the Queen''
 has been removed? Is that because the phrase might stick in the craw of some foreign policeman or a republican? Is the purpose of the change to attenuate the sincerity of the oath?

John Denham: The issue is the difficulty that arises for people who may be prepared to promise to serve the Queen as police officers but would find it difficult to swear to the sovereignty of the Queen.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70 - Director General of NCIS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: I rise to make a brief point about which we were again approached by the Police Federation. It is concerned that the clause would enable someone who is not attested as a constable to be appointed director general of the National Criminal Intelligence Service, but there is no similar provision relating to the director general of the National Crime Squad. The federation believes that it would be wholly inappropriate for someone who is not an attested police officer to head NCIS and to have command of attested police officers, so it is opposed to the change. I shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say on the matter.
 It is right to say that I have recently had a briefing at NCIS, with a couple of former senior colleagues in the House, but that was under Chatham house rules. I shall specifically not refer to that in anything that I say on this or any clause, and I should not want it to be taken that anything that I say results in any way from that briefing. I am speaking for myself and my party and where I quote another organisation such as the Police Federation I am happy to put forward its view. I thought that I should make that clear. 
 It is, however, fair to say that that very helpful briefing reinforced my personal view that the Police Federation is right about the matter. It is very difficult to see how someone who was not attested as a constable could be as effective in running NCIS as someone who was. We want someone running NCIS who has the experience of a long career in the police and reached a senior level. We have already seen a situation in which former Members of Parliament—so far, one from each side of the House—have been involved as chairmen of NCIS and the NCS but, from my observations, I think that the Police Federation is absolutely right to say that someone who is attested as a constable should be directing the operational side of the organisation. I shall be very interested to hear whether the Minister can justify making the change.

John Denham: We may have to agree to differ on that. NCIS is not a police but a multi-agency organisation. It has staff seconded from 22 national and international agencies. It plays a very important role in the fight against organised crime but it is for that reason that we want to ensure that the post of director general always attracts applications from the best candidates, potentially with a variety of relevant backgrounds. As the hon. Gentleman will have learnt from his time at NCIS, it focuses on intelligence, not on operational work. It informs the work of operational agencies, particularly but not exclusively the police. In intelligence work, police officers are not the only individuals with the right experience and personal qualities. Clearly, there are many people in such agencies as Customs and Excise, which are important components of NCIS, who potentially
 have the relevant expertise to hold the post of its director general.
 The change is being made for NCIS and not for the National Crime Squad because the NCS is a police organisation, carrying out operational police activities, and should be led by a police officer. The breadth of organisations involved in and co-operating in NCIS, and the reality that any one of those organisations could potentially produce the best candidate for the job of director general, has led us to the conclusion that there is no present need to restrict that post to a serving police officer. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 71 - Police members of NCIS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: Once again, I want to put on record the very strong concerns expressed by the Police Federation. Clauses 71 and 72 propose to change the way in which people can go into NCIS or the NCS. They make provision for the appointment of a person attested or sworn as a constable of any rank to be appointed as a permanent police member of either NCIS or the NCS.
 The Police Federation makes the point—I have seen this at NCIS and the NCS, where I had a briefing some time ago—that serving officers are currently seconded to NCIS and the NCS for a period and then, having done their secondment, go back. The Police Federation says, which seems to me to make eminent common sense, that that is an efficient and effective way of ensuring a free flow of skills between the forces and the service authorities. It makes the point that when officers have spent some time at the NCS or NCIS and then go back, they return to their forces with enhanced skills and specialist experience, which helps build up and strengthen the detective skills base in the forces. 
 One point that was made to my hon. Friend, myself and others in our Front Bench team as recently as last night by a retired, senior Customs man who had worked closely in this field was that in some forces there is a shortage of people with the required experience to carry out the operations. If some of the best people are taken away from some of the forces—particularly from smaller forces—and go permanently to NCIS or the NCS, that will compound the problem. The man who spoke to us last night made the point that that will exacerbate the problem that already exists. He said that he had something like 28 years' experience of dealing with drugs seizures and he expressed serious concern about the shortage, especially in smaller forces, of officers who were sufficiently senior to carry out big operations against those who NCIS call level 3 criminals—the most serious criminals. 
 If that is the case, making the changes and having lots of people move permanently into NCIS and the NCS could make the situation worse. The Government recognised in their White Paper that there is a shortage of experienced detectives in some forces as a result of the over-rigid application of tenure policies. That is the Government's view, as set out in their White Paper and it was reinforced in spades by the gentleman who briefed my hon. Friend and other hon. Members last night. 
 The Police Federation says that that shortage, which the Government have already acknowledged, could become a famine if the supply of detectives returning from what are currently secondments to NCIS and the NCS is significantly reduced. The Police Federation has made the point that that would be a qualitative as well as a quantitative reduction. The service authorities, NCIS and the NCS, would clearly have a motivation to retain as permanent police members those officers who had performed particularly well. That is human nature, and what we would expect. However, they would be prepared for those of perfectly competent but less star-like—what the Police Federation call ''standard''—performance to return to their forces, so that the effect of sections 71 and 72 could be to allow centralised organisations such as NCIS and the NCS to cream off the best talent from around the country to the impoverishment of the supplying 43 forces. 
 The Police Federation made the point that there could be a danger of exclusivity and reduced co-operation between service authorities and forces. Indeed, we know from experience in other countries—particularly and most worthy of note, the United States—that police or security agencies operating exclusively can lead to a danger of communications failures between them. All members of the Committee have been very much aware that in the USA, during the past three or four weeks, there have been huge debates and great investigations in Congress and the Senate about whether intelligence failures in the run-up to the terrorist atrocities on 11 September were caused by the danger of exclusivity. 
 The Police Federation says, and I agree entirely, that communication and co-operation between the service authorities—NCIS and the NCS—and forces are presently facilitated by the current secondment arrangement, which ensures a regular movement of personnel in both directions. If that movement is all, or mostly, one way, NCIS and the NCS could increasingly be seen, and could come to see themselves, as an exclusive set of organisations, and that could be to the detriment of communication and co-operation with police forces. That would be hugely detrimental. 
 I have been very impressed with what I have seen of the work of the NCS and NCIS. We want them to get even better. There is no doubt that what they have achieved in operations against the most serious criminals—many of them operating internationally and in this country—has been wonderful. I cannot praise them too highly. We do not want to do anything that could risk damaging that. The Police Federation has a very good point, quite separately from the 
 briefings that I have had at NCIS and the NCS. As recently as last night, my hon. Friends and I had a briefing from someone who was at the sharp end for many years—in his case, in Customs. Without being aware that the matter was about to come up in Committee, he made very much the same points that the Police Federation made about what needs improving and the danger that the situation could get worse. I believe that it can get worse, if the measure is implemented. I put that point seriously to the Minister and know that he will take it seriously. I shall listen with interest to what he has to say.

Norman Baker: Without repeating the comments of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), by and large, I endorse them. I, too, have had a meeting with the Police Federation and found their arguments on the matter persuasive. Obviously, I shall listen to what the Minister says to find out whether there are counter-arguments.
 This is not a philosophical but a practical point about what works best for the police. It is right that the Government should examine continually the operations of the police to see what improvements can be made. Indeed, some improvements have been set out in the Bill. However, I have not detected any failure in NCIS or the NCS. The arrangements in that part of the police family work well. I am concerned about the potential for NCIS and the NCS to cream off the best personnel at the expense of the 43 forces. I am also concerned that reinforcing the differences that already exist between NCIS and the NCS and the 43 forces by separating their personnel could lead to competition between different parts of the police, which would not be very healthy. 
 I recently attended the launch of an initiative, which I am happy to support, at Newhaven in my constituency. It brings together Customs, special branch and district council environmental health officers in recognising that there has not been the co-operation necessary to deal with the problems that are associated with the port. The work and information of different bodies were not being shared. There is a recognition that close co-operation is necessary, and I fear that that co-operation, which exists at present—I have seen no evidence to the contrary—may be jeopardised by the measure. I hope that the Minister is able to reassure me. The Police Federation has made sensible points, which merit a proper response.

Patrick Mercer: The Minister will be aware of the work that the Select Committee on Defence has been doing recently on homeland defence. A point that has been raised, not just by police forces but by ambulance and other emergency services, is that the level of threat to this country that has developed—or that has been underlined—since the events of 11 September last year has made it clear that all types of specialist skills are woefully lacking in some of the ordinary forces, not just police forces, across the country.
 One of the clearest statements came first from the Ministry of Defence police and then from several different chief officers of constabularies, who discussed 
 the intelligence effort necessary to combat the higher level of threat that we now face. They mentioned how heavily they depended on the cross-fertilisation of expertise from organisations such as NCIS and the NCS and how powerfully useful officers were, at quite modest levels, who had had a two or three-year tour with those organisations. They went into a hothouse of intelligence matters, understood intelligence at a level higher than just that of the petty criminal on the streets, honed their skills and were allowed to return to the forces to the huge aiding and abetting of the ordinary workaday intelligence out in the shires. I shall not labour the point further. However, the forces made the point clearly that the cross-fertilisation is important and that clauses 71 and 72 would probably work to its detriment.

John Denham: There were points of substance in the contributions of the hon. Members for Surrey Heath, for Lewes and for Newark (Patrick Mercer), but we must get the balance right. I am sure that opening up the possibility of direct recruitment is appropriate. It is undoubtedly true that the system of secondment is of value to NCIS, and it is of particular value to the police forces because NCIS trains people, as the hon. Member for Newark said, to a specialist level of operation that they would not necessarily gain in their own police forces. That is of enormous benefit to all the forces that supply officers to NCIS.
 Equally, NCIS and NCS must be able to do their own job. Training people for two or three years only for them to disappear when much time and energy has been invested in developing the skills that they need to have in NCIS frequently creates problems for that organisation. NCIS has never yet managed to reach its full complement of 1,300 officers. It is about 200 short. 
 The further difficulty is that it is not always easy to attract officers to the relatively short secondments that are on offer, nor it is easy to attract them to the longer secondments. Officers who intend to return to their force worry about what will happen to their career prospects while they are away. I assure the Committee that there is no intention of moving away from reliance on secondment as the primary method of staffing the organisations. Allowing some direct entry would enable NCIS and NCS to develop and skill up those that they have recruited directly, so that they are not always dependent on the existing body of skills. 
 It is most important to have permanent appointments in some senior and supervisory posts to enable the expertise in the organisation to develop. It will enable the organisations to achieve a better balance between secondment and direct employment. At present, direct employment is not possible. While I understand the arguments about not throwing out the baby with the bath water and ignoring the benefits of secondment, no justification has been made for not allowing the organisations direct recruitment. 
 As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said, we have recognised in the White Paper the shortage of specialist investigative skills and we will be dealing with that problem through the police reform programme. Some uncontroversial clauses allow a wider range of people to take up investigative jobs within the police service. I do not think that the two 
 clauses would diminish the number of people with investigative skills in the police service. Indeed, on some occasions they would enable NCIS to train up people in situ rather than rely on secondments. If anything, the provisions are more likely to increase the number of people with investigative skills in the police service.

Norman Baker: The Minister is responding constructively and making a persuasive case for the provisions. What is the attitude of the Association of Police Authorities? Is it satisfied that a correct balance has been struck?

John Denham: I would have to refer to the ACPO document to answer that question, and I do not have it with me. I think that ACPO is content that we should move in that direction. Individual forces may share some reservations about how far to go, but such matters cannot be prescribed in primary legislation. There is a professional recognition of the need to move in that direction throughout the service. In its report on the National Crime Squad in 2001–02, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary said:
''It soon became clear that the constant turnover of staff, in whom the National Crime Squad had invested significantly in specialist training, was causing operational difficulties for the organisation . . . Unless arrangements can be made for generally longer secondments, the demand for direct entry will become unanswerable.''
 That is the independent view of the inspectorate. I have rehearsed the reasons why longer-term secondments cause a problem. Officers are reluctant to take them up because they are not sure about their career position when they return to their home force at the end of the secondment. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 73 - Regulations for NCIS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: Once again, I wish to refer to some points about which the Police Federation of England and Wales contacted my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and me. They apply to clauses 73 and 74. The federation is pleased that the Government have responded to its wish for regulations. It has argued that regulations governing the terms and conditions of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and National Crime Squad terms should be identical to regulations that govern the terms and conditions for forces made under section 50 of the Police Act 1996.
 The Police Federation anticipates that the Home Secretary may intend the regulations applicable to NCIS and NCS to be similar in structure to those that will apply to forces as a consequence of the recent police negotiating board agreement on pay and conditions of service. That is, it anticipates that the regulations will provide the structure and appropriate 
 safeguards, and that the details will be set out in determinations made by the Secretary of State, which will be informed by police negotiating board agreements. 
 The Police Federation says that if that is so, the wording of clauses 73(1) and 74(1) would have the following result: three sets of determinations would be made by the Home Secretary, and three sets governing terms and conditions of service would apply separately to the 43 home forces, NCIS and the NCS. The Police Federation says that a simple way of avoiding the additional bureaucracy of legislating separately would be to bring NCIS and the NCS within the scope of section 50 of the Police Act 1996. It has suggested various ways in which that could be done by amending and combining clauses 73(1) and 74(1). 
 I am sure at the Minister and those who advise him have considered the matter, and have also looked at clauses 73(2) and 74(2), with which the Police Federation do not agree. That is because those subsections enable the Independent Police Complaints Commission to bring and conduct disciplinary proceedings. The Police Federation says that it is far from ideal to give a body powers both to investigate and prosecute disciplinary matters. The Minister will remember that I raised a similar point under another clause. 
 The royal commission on criminal procedure reported in 1981 that it is unsatisfactory for the person who has investigated the case to be the person responsible for the decision to prosecute. As I told the Minister in an earlier debate, that is a fundamental principle of criminal justice. 
 Clauses 73(2) and 74(2) confer 
''a right to participate in, or to be present at, disciplinary proceedings on such persons as may be specified''.
 The federation is concerned that the proceedings might be made open to the public. We raised that issue earlier, and I remember that the Minister said that there could be exceptional cases in which that might be considered, but that that would not be the norm. For the sake of clarification, it would be helpful if he would say on record that he believes that that also applies to the provisions under discussion. His comments could then be referred to if anyone considered our discussion under the ruling of Pepper v. Hart. 
 Another issue raised by the federation is the withdrawal of the right to silence without adverse inference at disciplinary proceedings. We had quite a debate on that earlier, and I do not think it would be sensible to repeat it. I simply note the issue, as the Police Federation has raised it once again. The Minister will, no doubt, want to say a word or two confirming what he said on that earlier occasion. Having put that on the record, I shall not detain the Committee further.

John Denham: The hon. Gentleman raises two main issues: one is whether we should automatically align the regulations for NCIS and NCS employees with those for the wider police service in England and Wales, and the second is about the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
 I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point on the first issue; certainly, we want to avoid bureaucracy. The service authorities will be the employers of police officers working for NCIS and NCS. It would be sensible to allow some discussion with them on the way in which regulations should be shaped before committing ourselves absolutely. I anticipate that a similar general approach will be taken to the regulations applied to Home Office police forces in England and Wales. We should be sensible and ensure that regulations are properly tailored to specific requirements of, and specific circumstances experienced by, the organisations, if they would not arise elsewhere. Powers exist to consolidate the regulations should we decide to do that. 
 I know that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), led for the Government during the sitting in which we considered the IPCC. There are issues of principle about the IPCC's ability to pursue a disciplinary case if it has worries about the way in which it might otherwise be conducted. We discussed exceptional circumstances relating to opening things up to the public. I should expect the approach taken on NCIS and the NCS to reflect the same approach that we take with regard to the IPCC. During discussions, it was decided that the sheer complexity of drafting primary legislation for every different part of every police service for which we want an IPCC approach would be an enormous job, which is why some will be addressed through regulations. However, we want the approach to be the same for all police officers, wherever they are. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 74 to 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77 - Police authorities to produce three-year strategy plans

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 68, in page 70, leave out line 36 and insert
'In considering the draft plan, the police authority'.
 The position of the police authority is absolutely crucial throughout the Bill, and the amendment emphasises the role that we think the police authority should play. The clause is clear that the police authority will be responsible for issuing the three-year strategy plan. Naturally, the chief officer will produce a draft and must be mindful of local opinion during that process. We want to ensure that the police authority makes contact with the local community. That is its legitimate role and such input is an important part of the tripartite system that we have discussed so much. 
 The Bill confuses the roles of the police authority and the chief officer in many ways. The amendment would reinforce with whom we believe the consultation should occur and the police authority's role, rather than that of the chief officer.

John Denham: The Government took the line in another place that the amendment adds nothing to existing arrangements. Under section 96 of the Police Act 1996, consultation with local people on policing in their area is done by the police authority in conjunction with the chief constable. We expect the same arrangements to be used—and improved, if necessary—when developing the three-year plans. Most people believe that the consultation system works satisfactorily for the one-year plans.
 The amendment would bring in the police authority's assessment of consultations at a very late stage—after the chief officer had produced the draft plan. At the moment, the arrangements in place in most local areas are that those views are 
 fed into the draft plan while it is being prepared by the police authority in conjunction with the chief officer, which is a sensible arrangement. I ask the Committee to reject the amendment because it does not helpfully add to the arrangements that have been in place since 1996.

Annette Brooke: That argument is a matter of opinion, but as future amendments require further debate and we will return to the issue, I shall withdraw the amendment. I am sure that the Minister has been involved in compiling many local authority plans and knows that there is interaction at an early stage. When draft plans are being produced right across the range of services in my local authority, councillors go out and consult the local authority early in the plan's preparation. That would be good practice for a three-year strategy plan. The matter gains significance with the additional time in the plan. I ask the Minister to give the matter further consideration, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 69, in page 71, line 6, leave out from first 'plan' to the end of line.

Ann Widdecombe: With this we may discuss amendment No. 70, in page 71, line 12, at end insert—
'(6A) Any guidance, or any modified or revised guidance, issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (6) above shall be issued no later than 30th June in the year preceding the beginning of the relevant three year period to which it applies.'.

Norman Baker: We discussed this subject at length earlier in the Bill when we debated part 1, which related to the appropriate extent of the Home Secretary's powers and how far he or she should be able to go in directing or cajoling police authorities or individual chief officers. Proposed new subsection (6)(a) requires the Secretary of State to:
''issue guidance to police authorities and chief officers of police as to the matters to be contained in any three-year strategy plan''.
 We do not object to the idea of the Secretary of State issuing guidance, and it is sensible that police authorities and chief constables are made aware of national priorities and good practice. It is also appropriate for the Secretary of State to say, ''Given the changes in technology, you should be looking at this,'' or, ''Given this experience and training, you should be looking at that.'' That is entirely sensible. 
 The form of words that we object to is: 
''and as to the form to be taken by any such plan'',
 which we believe to be unnecessarily over-proscriptive. If the Secretary of State can issue guidance, he or she has other levers to pull elsewhere in the Bill or in existing legislation—throughout the Police Act 1996, for example. Why is it necessary to include those words? 
 I am sure that the Secretary of State could achieve what was required without inclusion of the words in question. As drafted, the new subsection goes too far in restricting the ability of the police authority or chief constable to respond to local conditions. Those bodies should be able to understand the guidance from the Home Secretary, to take full account of it and include it in their plans, but nevertheless produce a plan that reflects the local community and its needs. 
 The form set out by the Secretary of State may be too much of a straitjacket, making it difficult for the Secretary of State's wishes to be delivered at local level because the form is not applicable to the area in question. The form would be very different for London and for Sussex or other shire counties. We oppose such unnecessary inflexibility. 
 Amendment No. 70 concerns timing. We seek to ensure that the Secretary of State gives police authorities and chief constables adequate time to draw up a plan that works and meets the Secretary of State's own requirements. The Minister may argue that 30 June is the wrong date and we may disagree about the exact date, but we believe that November—as is currently proposed—is a little late. 
 Those of us who have been in local government—I served for six years as leader of a district council and I am sure that other Members of the Committee have council experience—will know that local authority officers complain that they are given insufficient time to respond to Government circulars, diktats and requirements. They need to be given their budgets in time. They have to respond in a haphazard and unco-ordinated way to meet deadlines for the beginning of the financial year. Amendment No. 70 is intended to install good practice—from the Minister's point of view, to ensure that the Secretary of State's wishes and guidance are properly taken into account. If the guidance comes out late in the year, that will hinder the police authority and the chief constable from responding to it in a positive and constructive way. 
 These are sensible amendments, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively to them.

John Denham: Amendment No. 69 is about form rather than substance. We want to enable the Secretary of State to say, for example, that it is not adequate to have one copy of the plan that is kept in a locked room in police authority headquarters—although that is not a hugely important point. We want to encourage a proper balance between traditional and modern forms of communication, so that the plans can be made available on the internet, as well as in the form of leaflets and so forth.
 There is nothing particularly exceptional about having such wording in legislation of this nature. A best value provision in the Local Government Act 1999 has a different but similar form of words. It states: 
''The Secretary of State may issue guidance on the form and content of plans and the manner in which they should be published.''
 Therefore, there is nothing sinister about the use of the word ''form'' in subsection (6)(a). 
 Amendment No. 70 raises a more substantive point. It is important that guidance about the preparation and publication of the three-year plans goes out to the police authorities and the police service. We will soon be into the annual programme of updating the national policing plan, the first of which will be published in the autumn. The national policing forum, which advises the Home Secretary on the plan, met for the first time on 24 June, and there was a good discussion about what would be valuable to have in the national policing plan in future years. That plan will develop incrementally, and it will become the document to which police authorities will be able to refer from year to year, when they draw up their one-year or three-year plans. 
 I acknowledge the point that if there is any additional guidance ahead of that, it should go out in good time. For reasons that we discussed in earlier debates, it will not always be appropriate to tie ourselves to a specific calendar date, but I accept the point that Governments have a responsibility to ensure that such advice is put out in good time, so that those who are meant to act on it can do so.

Norman Baker: I thank the Minister for his constructive response. On the words in the Bill to which amendment. No. 69 refers, I accept that his intentions are good. We must ensure that police authorities do not keep a single copy of their plan in a locked room, and in a safe with a combination that is difficult to crack. However, we must examine what the words that are employed in legislation could be used to achieve. I submit that the words that amendment No. 69 seeks to delete can be used to achieve a different purpose from that which has been described, but that is not a particularly important point, so I will not pursue it.
 On the issue of time for guidance, it is important that the Minister said what he said, and that those comments have been put on the record. He recognised the need to allow proper time. In the light of his comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 71, in page 71, leave out lines 20 to 22.

Ann Widdecombe: With this it will also be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 72, in page 71, leave out lines 32 to 41.
 No. 102, in page 71, line 33, at end insert 'in preparing'. 
 No. 103, in page 71, line 37, leave out 
'may not be consistent with'
 and insert 
'the police authority in question has not taken into account'.
 No. 104, in page 71, line 37, leave out 
'may not be consistent with'
 and insert 
'has not had regard to'.
 No. 105, in page 71, line 40, leave out 
'is in fact so inconsistent'
 and insert 
'did in fact fail to have regard to the relevant National Policing Plans'.
 No. 73, in page 71, line 42, leave out from beginning of line 42 to end of line 2 on page 72. 
 No. 74, in page 72, leave out lines 14 to 21. 
 No. 75, in page 72, leave out lines 22 to 24. 
 No. 107, in clause 82, page 76, line 28, leave out 'include' and insert 'take account of'. 
 No. 108, in page 76, line 34, leave out 
'so as to include in it a'
 and insert 
'to take account within the'.

Norman Baker: This group of amendments again raises the issue of the proper powers of the Home Secretary vis-à-vis the police authority and the chief officer. It returns us to the discussion about the appropriate weight on each leg of the tripod. I make no apology for raising that issue here, and for tabling these amendments.
 I return to the point that I made in our discussion of the previous amendments: this Bill and earlier legislation give the Home Secretary many levers to pull, and these amendments have been tabled because we object to some of those powers—they are a lever too far. We particularly object to the powers in clause 82. 
 The amendments would remove the requirement for the police authority to send a copy of the plan to the Home Secretary for amendment—it would have to send the plan, but not for amendment. 
 When the matter was discussed in the Lords, Lord Rooker was keen to emphasise that in his view the clause does not give the Home Secretary a power of veto over the three-year plan. However, that is a matter of interpretation, and we believe that there is a possibility that that might be concluded from the drafting of the Bill. 
 Having read the Lords Hansard carefully, we do not believe that Lord Rooker made a persuasive case for the Home Secretary to have the power to call in draft plans to be checked, presumably by his officials, and to make comments to the authority if he or his officials are not happy with a plan. I do not understand why the Home Secretary feels that he needs those powers. There is no evidence that police authorities will not have regard to the national plan in developing their three-year plan. There are many other checks on police authorities. The Home Secretary issues guidance, and 
 there is HMIC and a police standards unit. There is a range of other ways of ensuring that police authorities and chief constables do their duty properly, without such micro-management, poring over plans in great detail and having Home Office officials checking them and sending back comments as though they were recalcitrant pupils who need to be ticked off by the teacher, which is how the clause reads. In practical terms, a point might also be made about whether Home Office officials in Queen Anne's gate are in a better position to know what is best for micro-managing a police authority or force elsewhere in the country than are people who live, work and regularly deal with police matters in that area. 
 I am at a loss to understand why the Home Secretary feels that the powers are appropriate. I hope that he will explain why he feels that they are and that he will accept that the provisions are in some ways offensive to police authorities, according to comments that I received from the Association of Police Authorities. They do not believe that the proposal will enhance their role or that it is innovating. On the contrary, they believe that it will undermine their role in a way that suggests that they are not to be trusted. The Minister may not like what I am saying, but he will have to deal with the APA's view. I urge him to give further consideration to the provisions and to consider whether they are necessary or may in fact unnecessarily damage the tripartite arrangement. 
 We are happy to endorse Conservative Members' amendments. I shall return if necessary to the subsequent group of amendments, but the key point relates to arrangements in the tripartite structure and the erosion of the police authorities' powers.

James Paice: As the Committee will have noticed, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath and I have added our names to several amendments in the group of amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes. We have also tabled a cluster of amendments, Nos. 102 to 105, which are in our names only. The distinction is best described by saying that amendments Nos. 71 and 72 take a bludgeon to the clause, whereas Nos. 102 to 105 take a scalpel to it. However, the effect, and the concern, is the same. The concern is so strong that, depending on the debate and the Minister's response, I am minded to press amendment No. 102 to a Division.
 The group stands together. Amendments Nos. 102 and 103, or, alternatively, Nos. 102 and 104, are necessary to make grammatical sense, and are followed by amendment No. 105. The purpose of the amendments is to retain the police authority's ultimate discretion in setting its three-year strategy. The tripartite arrangement, for which all Committee members have expressed admiration and support throughout proceedings on the Bill, is essential. Like the hon. Member for Lewes, I am concerned that the clause will tilt the balance back towards the Secretary of State. I am slightly puzzled about why the clause is here and not in part 1, which brought together the national policing plan, where it would have fitted much more clearly. However, that is a technical issue. 
 It seems entirely obvious that it is necessary for authorities to refer to the national plan when drawing 
 up their three-year strategies. It also seems sensible that, if it is obvious that a police authority has totally and utterly ignored the plan and gone off in completely the wrong direction, there should be some mechanism for saying, ''Hang on, you'd better have another look at this—do you realise that you are one police force acting totally differently from all the rest?'' I accept that the Secretary of State should then at least have the power to consult those listed in subsection (11), to see whether they agree with him that that particular police authority has gone completely away from the national plan. 
 The distinction that I want to draw, however, is between the wording about guidance in subsection (6) and that in subsection (10). Subsection (6) says that 
''it shall be the duty of every police authority and chief officer of police to take account of any guidance under this subsection'',
 and I have no difficulties with that wording at all. Where I have a difficulty is with the wording in subsection (10), which states: 
''If the Secretary of State considers that there are grounds for thinking that''
 the plan 
''may not be consistent with any National Policing Plan''.
 That takes the wording a stage further. 
 We are arguing about the meaning of words, but I think that, to most people, the term ''consistent with'' means almost matching, or having a very close similarity. That is, to me, as the hon. Member for Lewes said in a different way, granting to the Secretary of State the power to ensure that his policing plan is adhered to almost to the letter, through the police authorities' three-year strategies, and that is too much of a tilt towards the Secretary of State. Yes, those authorities should have regard to the policing plan or take it into account. We have given the Committee the option, through amendments Nos. 103 and 104, of having the wording ''taken into account'' or ''had regard to''.

Paul Stinchcombe: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that, having taken the plan into account, the police authorities should then be able to defy it?

James Paice: I certainly believe that a police authority should have the ultimate decision about its three-year strategy. As I made clear, if it seems to the Secretary of State that the police authority has drawn up a strategy that, to use the hon. Gentleman's word, defies the plan substantially—goes off completely in the wrong direction—it would then be acceptable for him to use his power to consult the people listed in subsection (11) about whether they agree with him that that is the case. Even then, however, I do not believe that the Secretary of State should have the power to overrule the contents of that strategy. The tripartite arrangement is so important that the ultimate decision about the content of the plan must lie with the police authority. It is perfectly reasonable to say that it must take account of or have regard to the plan, but we should not use the phrase ''consistent with'', which, to me, implies a much closer identity.
 The penultimate line of subsection (10) says: 
''he shall, before informing the police authority of his conclusions on whether or not it is in fact so inconsistent, consult with the persons mentioned in subsection (11).''
 There is a much more desirable way of explaining that if an authority clearly defies the national policing plan, the Secretary of State can operate according to the legislation. We are now addressing amendment No. 105, by which we seek to insert the words 
''did in fact fail to have regard to the relevant National Policing Plan''.
 He should not have the powers to make it consistent, but he should have extreme last-resort powers in the eventuality—which I do not envisage—that some police authority and chief constable were complete and utter mavericks and went off in completely the opposite direction to the national plan. In that case, I would be prepared to accept that there should be a fall-back position. I am concerned about the terminology. The word ''consistent'' implies that the Secretary of State could intervene on much more minor aspects of deviation from the plan.

Paul Stinchcombe: The hon. Gentleman accepts that the police authority should not be able to defy the national plan, so I presume that he accepts that there should be broad compatibility between the various tiers of police planning. What is the difference between compatibility and consistency?

James Paice: The difference is that ''compatibility'' does not appear in the Bill and ''consistency'' appears in our amendment. No one has put forward the word ''compatibility'' so I do not see the relevance of it. We are discussing a grammatical interpretation of individual words. I am concerned, and if there is an alternative form of words to explain the meaning that I am trying to achieve, I will be the first to accept that.

Norman Baker: Is not it the point that the police authority and the chief constable in an individual area should—having had regard to guidance—be able to use local flexibility to get to the end that the Home Secretary wishes, but not necessarily by going along a particular road at a particular speed in the particular vehicle that the Home Secretary wants them to use?

James Paice: That is a perfectly good analogy of what we are trying to achieve. We come back to the interpretation of words. I believe that the word ''consistent'', which is what we take exception to, implies a very close following of the plan in detail. Therefore, the Secretary of State's powers outlined in the later parts of the clause can be brought into play far too early in the proceedings, and he can effectively dictate what is in the strategy. That is what I am trying to avoid. I simply say that the purpose of the amendments is that the police authority should make the final decisions as to what is in their strategy for the reasons proposed by the hon. Member for Lewes, other than absolutely in extremis when there is complete failure to have regard.

John Denham: We have had a useful debate, which will give me the opportunity to clarify what the clause does.
 Let me reiterate our support for the tripartite structure. There have been several references to the 
 three legs of the tripod in this and other debates. It is worth reminding ourselves that tripods are generally erected in order to support something. In this case, the tripod exists to support effective policing at national and local level throughout England and Wales. The combination of the national policing plan, the local consultation, the local plans and the clauses work to ensure with the partners in the police service—[Interruption.]

Ann Widdecombe: Order. Can I ask the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) either to take that device outside, or to switch it off now?

John Denham: The combination of measures is intended to ensure that we promote the most effective policing at local level, and ensure that the combination of forces working effectively with each other at local level produces the most effective policing at national level. That is what the clauses do.
 The hon. Member for Lewes asked for examples and I shall give one on which there will be consensus in the Committee. It is highly likely that the national policing plan to be published in the autumn will yet again emphasise the importance of extending the national intelligence model to all forces in England and Wales during the next year or two. If a police authority decided that it was not prepared to make resources available for implementation of that model and said so in its plan, the Home Secretary would have every right to raise the matter. The process is that the Home Secretary would do so after consultation with ACPO and the police authority. There would be a bringing together of the circle because those police service partners were involved in drawing up the national plan and advising the Home Secretary. That is an example of when it would be right for the Home Secretary to say that a police authority's action was simply not consistent with the national policing plan. I suspect that hon. Members would be sympathetic if a force or authority had clearly set itself against measures that had been advocated after Sir David O'Dowd's taskforce reports on the reduction of bureaucracy and red tape in the police service to free up officer time. 
 The national policing plan will, in addition to best value performance indicator and other indicator targets that we are trying to bring together coherently, give a sense of direction in some of those qualitative areas of work that do not lend themselves easily to numerical targets. 
 Having explained the role, I turn to the amendments. On consistency with the national plan, there are two arguments. The process involves consultation with police authorities and different elements of the police service. On the policing forum are Victim Support, the Council for Ethnic Minority Voluntary Organisations, the Evangelical Alliance, the NHS Confederation, the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Association of Chief Education Officers, the Local Government Association and a wide range of partners from outside the police service as well as the core police service advisers. We brought those people in to give a sense of direction to policing 
 at national level. It would be wrong to say that the Home Secretary should not be able to express a view on what is happening in a specific force. 
 The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire expressed the argument more subtly. He said not that there should be no response from the Home Secretary but that the choice of wording is between ''have regard to'' and ''consistent with''. Without becoming too bogged down in the interpretation of individual words and phrases, I simply say that to make a judgment on whether a police authority did or did not have regard to something is a much more subjective assessment for the Secretary of State to make than whether the document produced as a result of whatever process is consistent with the national policing plan. In practice, it would be enormously difficult for the Home Secretary to have a clear view on whether the document in front of him had been through a process of having had regard to the national policing plan. It is relatively straightforward to be able to make a judgment about consistency. That is why we prefer the word ''consistency''. 
 The final point must be emphasised strongly. At that stage the process stops. There is no further stage at which the Home Secretary can draw in the plan and order it to be rewritten. It is important to understand that. The Home Secretary may tell a police authority, after consulting other organisations, as set out in the Bill, that its plan is not consistent with the national policing plan, but that is where we have let the process stop. There is no further power—despite the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Lewes—to rewrite that plan. 
 That is a balance between a good, sensible, broad sense of direction for national involvement in the police service in England and Wales and the development of plans consistent with that. However, ultimately, the autonomy that is highly prized by the hon. Gentleman and others on the final content of the plan will lie with the police authority, as it does today. I hope that we have the process correct.

James Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. However, if that is the case, why has he included subsections (10) and (11)? What happens if the Secretary of State believes that the strategy is inconsistent with the national plan and consults the people listed in subsection (11)? If he cannot rewrite the strategy, what is achieved? Assuming those people all agree with him, what does he do? Does he just put a note on the strategy to say that he does not accept it?

John Denham: The reason for including subsections (10) and (11) was to underline the fact that the national policing plan, though produced by the Home Secretary, is produced after consultation with the national policing forum, key members of which are tripartite partners at national level: the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities. We thought it advisable that the Secretary of State should consult ACPO and APA before he writes to a police authority to say that he does not like its draft plan or that it is inconsistent. Clearly, for a police authority to know that the Home Secretary had written after consulting police authorities at national level through ACPO and that they shared the view that
 there was a serious inconsistency in the plan would have greater force that what might be seen as the opinion of the Secretary of State. The point of the process, even at that stage of intervention, is to bring in the other partners who played a key role in drawing up the national policing plan, in addition to the Secretary of State.

James Paice: I understand the reason for the consultation. However, is the Minister saying that the Secretary of State simply writes to the police authority after the consultation, assuming that it supports his view, and says that he does not believe that the police authority's strategy is consistent with the national plan and that all those consulted agree with him, but that, ultimately, if the police authority wants to stand by its strategy, it does so?

John Denham: That is precisely the point. The Secretary of State relies on the force of the intervention based on his consultation with the other police service partners. He does not rely on an ability to require the plan to be amended in a specific way.

Nick Hawkins: I would like the Minister to deal briefly with one further point. My hon. Friend has drawn out from the Minister who the Secretary of State will consult and what then happens. The Police Federation believes that it would be sensible for the Secretary of State to consult the Police Advisory Board and the Police Federation Joint Branch Board, in addition to the people who are listed in subsection (11). Has the Minister considered those suggestions?

John Denham: I cannot imagine that it would usually be advisable to involve the Police Advisory Board. It deals with different matters, such as the non-statutory part of employment conditions in general and other wider issues. The Police Federation is involved, in that as a member of the national policing forum it will have advised the Home Secretary on the national policing plan. Sensibly, the legislation is probably better as it is. It requires the Secretary of State to consult the other two main tri-partite partners and leaves him some discretion.
 It is always dangerous for Ministers on their feet to come up with examples but if, for example, the area of concern was that a police authority plan clearly neglected the importance of partnership with other local agencies—the entire Committee agrees that the police service must work in partnership with other groups—it might be appropriate to consult other organisations such as the Local Government Association or the health service before commenting to the police authority on what the expectations are. However, I would not want to give a commitment to the federation, the PAB or any individual members of the national policing forum that they would always be consulted. There is a substantial number of them, as I indicated earlier.

Norman Baker: As always, I am grateful to the Minister for his response, which was useful in teasing out the fact that a police authority may stand its ground if it wishes to do so. The Secretary of State will obviously be able to pull other levers, and will be keen
 to invoke the police standards unit, HMIC and anything else he can get his hands on, but it is important to establish that a police authority has the right to stand its ground.
 Nevertheless, I am unhappy that there is still too much potential for interference after the guidance has been issued. The Minister talked about the national intelligence model, and picked an example that would, of course, find consensus in the Committee. It would obviously be a serious matter if a police authority did not opt in to a policy that needed to be operated nationally, but detailed interference may be inappropriate in other cases. A study in a small force somewhere in the country might, for example, conclude that police stations outside major towns should be closed, because they take up the time of officers who should be on the street. The national guidance might then recommend reducing the number of police stations and the working hours that they involve. However, a police authority might feel strongly that that was wrong, and that we should increase the number of stations and keep them open for longer because of the need for community support. The Minister will be aware of the recent reversal in Sussex. The previous chief constable closed police stations, but I am glad to say that the new chief constable is reopening them. 
 Those are matters for individual chief constables and police authorities, not for guidance from the Secretary of State. The clause would, however, allow guidance to be issued not simply in the initial stages, but as a comment on plans that were being produced. That would be inappropriate, and would put undue pressure on police authorities and chief constables. 
 The Minister did not like the phrase ''have regard to''. I agree that it is more subjective, but that is no bad thing; subjectivity is sometimes quite useful. Some police authorities and chief constables might want to take a different direction from the Secretary of State or a different route to the same end, as I suggested in my earlier analogy. They would still listen carefully to him; indeed, they would be foolish not to. None the less, they might ask, ''What is his purpose? Does he have a valid point?'' Having listened carefully and considered the matter, they might conclude that he is wrong and that their duty is to plough ahead.

James Paice: The Minister feels that the words ''have regard to'' are too subjective, which is a subjective judgment in itself. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that amendment No. 103 offers an alternative, and that the Minister could not possibly object to the phrase ''taken into account'', when he uses something similar in subsection (6)?

Norman Baker: We have not yet heard a Minister object to his own formulation, so I suppose that he will go along with that phrase.

John MacDougall: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it would be inconsistent to use delegated responsibilities to give police forces the power to act in ways that were not consistent with a plan drawn up after extensive consultation? Would the Secretary of State not then intervene more often? Is it not better to have consistency once one has reached an
 agreed position? As the Minister explained, police forces will have room to stand their ground if they have credible reasons for doing so. Will that not allow for consistency and the freedom to act without intervention?

Norman Baker: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Minister's concluding remarks mean that a police authority can stand by its plan, I welcome that. However, I do not want to get into an argument about semantics, or about consistency and compatibility, because that would not be helpful.
 I would like the Home Secretary to issue guidance, and the police authority to take it forward. The Home Secretary should have a right to intervene if the police authority goes way off beam into a different direction. However, if the police authority determines that it should take a different route to the same end, or go at a different speed in a different vehicle, I see nothing wrong with that.

John MacDougall: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that if it is not consistent, then it must be inconsistent? We will end up in the position of saying, ''This is the agreed procedure, but we can be inconsistent with it.'' Does that not make a mockery of the consultations that lead to the agreed position?

Norman Baker: We are getting into semantics. It depends what it is consistent with—the overall aims and objectives or the micromanagement that the Home Secretary might wish to impose.

Paul Stinchcombe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. However, I shall return to semantics. There is a difference between a requirement to take something into account and an objective of seeking consistency. The former is a process, the latter a desired outcome. As a public lawyer, I have seen numerous judicial reviews in which somebody who is required to take something into account pays lip service to the principle and says that he has done it, but clearly has not.

Norman Baker: The alternative ''has not had regard to'' appears in one of the amendments. I do not think that a police authority will proceed in a way that is completely at variance with the Government of the day. No police authority is not going to take seriously the comments of a Home Secretary. When the tables were turned and I said that the Home Secretary could do one thing or another, the Minister's response was to say that no Home Secretary would ever do that. For the purposes of its deliberations, the Committee assumes that the level of variation from the norm by chief constables, police authorities or the Home Secretary is limited. Therefore, the problem will not arise.
 I return to the point that there is too much potential for micro-management, although I welcome the Minister's confirmation that a police authority can, if it wishes, stand out. It will be judged by its decision and that will be subject to comment by HMIC and others, as is proper. I still believe that the clause goes too far in giving the Secretary of State the ability to intervene on a micro-management level. I shall not 
 press amendment No. 71 but, given the comments of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, he may wish to pursue one of his amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 102, in page 71, line 33, at end insert 'in preparing'. 
 Question put, That the amendment by made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 15.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 79 - Expenses of members of police authorities etc.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: Once again, the Police Federation has been in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and myself. It believes that, as a matter of principle, the rules governing the reimbursement of expenses of members of police authorities should not be substantially more favourable than those governing the reimbursement of expenses incurred by police officers. As an example, it quotes from the recent police negotiating board agreement on police pay and conditions of service:
''refreshment and subsistence allowances are due to be replaced by reimbursement of actual expenses incurred evidenced by receipts.'' 
The Police Federation believes that the same change should be made to the expenses arrangements for members of police authorities. On reading that, I decided that it was at least a legitimate matter to ask the Minister about, although I shall not vote against the clause, and I anticipate that the Minister may say that the rules have to be slightly different for various reasons.

John Denham: It involves slightly different matters of substance. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the changes in the PNB regulations were part of a wider attempt to remove at least some of the multiplicity of individual allowances, leads and payments in the police pay system. It is a sensible approach to the expenses of police authority members, but there is no need for us to make detailed regulations nationally in relation to allowances that have previously been deregulated. We are now doing the same for
 expenses, which has generally been welcomed by police authorities.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 80 - President of ACPO

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: In this case, the Police Federation has written to my hon. Friend and myself to say that it agrees with what is proposed in clause 80, although it says—and I share this opinion—
''we are intrigued as to the intentions behind it.''
 It is intrigued about whether there is any special significance in introducing a special measure in an Act of Parliament to provide that the president of ACPO shall continue to hold the rank of chief constable. I am equally puzzled and intrigued about that, so I am interested to know what the Minister has to say.

John Denham: The underlying policy is to enable the creation of a full-time presidency of ACPO, because it is becoming increasingly demanding for someone to
 act as chief constable of a force and as the professional leader of the whole police service. We were first persuaded of the need to create a full-time presidency of ACPO. Then the organisation persuaded us that the person who acts, in effect, as the leader all chief constables would need to have the same professional status. There are some additional functions that go with the presidency, such as activities related to the work of the police national co-ordinating centre, which come into play to deal with floods and similar events. ACPO argued that in those situations where there is something of an operational crossover, it would be necessary for the person in office to be a chief constable, and because otherwise they would have to forego that office when they left the force to become full-time president.

Nick Hawkins: That seems very sensible. I am happy with that answer.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 81 to 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.